Notes to Chapter 3 { 313but quickly saw become more treacherous. The philosopher’s characterization of the rela-
tionship between the empirical state and the idea of the state in his 1822 – 23 lectures on world
history demonstrates, importantly, that this ambiguity continued in statements Hegel made
after any illusions of Prussian progressivism had been dispelled. See, for example, Hegel’s
discussion of the relationship between the people and the government in the state, in “Die
Natur des Staats” in VPW, especially 79.
119. Gans, “Dritte Rede vor dem ‘Kulturverein,’” 79.
120. Ibid., 78.
121. Ibid.
122. Ibid. Gans here and at the end of his final address has an axe to grind with unnamed
people from the Hamburg Specialverein who had criticized the Verein for not focusing on
specific pragmatic tasks. I am here not interested in the specific quibble but rather in the
philosophical argument it elicits from Gans.
123. Ibid.
124. Waszek’s edition reads aber, whereas the text prepared by Rubaschoff reads oben (“Erst -
linge der Entjudung,” 196 ). In preparing the text of Gans’s addresses, Waszek returned to the
original publication of these texts, which I have not been able to consult. He corrects a number
of mistakes, and I assume that he simply missed this one. The context militates for oben.
125. Gans, “Dritte Rede vor dem ‘Kulturverein,’” 78 – 79.
126. Mendes-Flohr and Reinharz note how Gans’s acceptance of the government stipend
undermined his moral leadership of the Verein (The Jew in the Modern World, 220 , note 2 ).
Waszek notes the salient role that Gans’s failure to secure an academic appointment played
in the dissolution of the Verein and aptly notes: “The integration through Bildung and Wis-
senschaft that the Verein had striven after presumed political parameters that did not obtain,
or that had revealed themselves to be illusions” (“‘Wissenschaft und Liebe zu den Seinen,’ ”
84 ). As Waszek notes in another context, the stipendium that Gans accepted was contingent
on his agreement, as stipulated by Minister von Altenstein in a letter to Gans of June 6 ,
1823 , to seek a career from which he would not be impeded by his “personal circumstances”
(persönliches Verhältniß); see Waszek, “Vorwort,” 17 – 18. Gans received this letter from von
Altenstein two months after he delivered his final address to the Verein; at that time his Hege-
lianism was still defiant, not yet compromised.
127. The correspondence continued, eventually only sporadically, until October 1834 ,
shortly before Moser’s untimely death. See Klaus Briegleb’s illuminating discussions of the
correspondence in “‘Jeder Reiche ist ein Judas Ischariot!’” and Bei den Wassern Babels, 31 –
47. Adolf Strodtmann’s analysis of the Wohlwill-Moser correspondence and Hegel’s place
in it is still worthwhile, if obviously dated (H. Heine’s Leben und Werke, 1 : 263 – 66 ). See also
Albert Friedlander, “The Wohlwill-Moser Correspondence” (hereafter AF). The typescript
of the complete correspondence (correspondence between Moses Moser and Immanuel
Wolf-Wohlwill, typescript, Leo Baeck Foundation, New York [hereafter WM]) is less widely
available than Friedlander’s article, which quotes extensively from it. Thus, in addition to
the page number in the typescript, I also give a page number in Friedlander’s article when-
ever the passage in question can be found there.
128. The strained relationship between the Berlin Hegelians and the Hamburg business-
men is evident, for example, in Gans’s letters (cosigned by Moser) to Wohlwill of December
23 , 1822 , and April 22 , 1823 , and in Gans’s final presidential address to the Verein. Briegleb